On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Stefani Seibold wrote: >> >> All complains are design decisions not made by me. I will send a patch >> >> for the GFP_ATOMIC thing. For the other one it would be the best to ask >> >> Andy for the reason. >> > >> > I'm not saying it's your fault, but if we rework code, then we really >> > should question such things. What happens if you remove the x32 call >> > and make the x64 subsys thing valid for both cases? >> > >> >> It's not just that. The x86_64 and x32 vdso page arrays are *far* >> cleaner than the 32-bit variant. They manage to do the entire vdso >> setup dance without any allocation at all. This avoids silly >> questions about error handling and GFP_KERNEL :) >> >> See vdso/vdso.S for the rather small amount of magic needed. > > Is there any reason why we can't use that for x86_32 ? >
Not really. I'll play with it a bit. > Thanks, > > tglx -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
